that's who walked up on us. His first name was Gary, can't for the life of me remember his last name. He retired about 2 years ago. The new warden is Vance Flowers, I've heard nothing but great things about him.

You still waiting?

Sec. 12.103. ENTERING LAND; USE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED BY ENTRY; CIVIL PENALTY. (a) To enforce the game and fish laws of the state and to conduct scientific investigations and research regarding wild game or fish, an authorized employee of the department may enter on any land or water where wild game or fish are known to range or stray. No action may be sustained against an employee of the department to prevent his entering on land or water when acting in his official capacity as described by this subsection.

(a) To enforce the game and fish laws of the state......

Still the same as any other LEO.
Just as the police still have to have probable cause to come into your house without a warrant if they suspect a crime is in progress. The key words there are 'enforce' and 'probable cause'. If they see an obvious violation, whoops, probable cause!
Are you telling me that they have the right to cut the chain on my gate on my property and just drive around as they please? No LEO has that right.
I would hate to see the transcript of a trial like that.

Defense attorney-"So Officer, can you tell us how you and your partner came to find and arrest my client?"
LEO-"Well, we were just riding around, and I said to my partner, 'Hey! This looks like a good spot to hunt. Want to ride around on this private property and see what we can find?' He said sure! So we just cut the lock on the gate, drove in , and after driving for about 30 minutes finally came across the defendant."

Don't get me wrong. My family and I always welcome the GW, and on all my families property we have always told them that they could come anytime.
In my 50 years of hunting and fishing, I have yet to have a bad experience. All have been courteous and VERY professional.

nonsequitor - roll these phrases around in your head for a minute:

Heard shots fired coming from the general direction of...
During a routine traffic stop, I smelled what I suspected to be...

Now, imagine a defense attorney attempting to disprove either statement.

"I see. May I remind you that the issue here is probable cause and not whether or not my client was in violation of any game laws."

"Approximately how many hunters are there in Texas? In the county where you arrested my client?"

"And since you heard these shots from the 'general direction of blahblahblah,' how can you be sure they were shots fired by my client and not some other person who hunts in Texas or in that county?"

"Can you tell me about your training in locating a shooter based on the sound of a shot heard from an unknown distance away and coming from a vague direction?"

...Remember that it's not defense's responsibility to disprove a statement by a prosecution witness; it's defense's goal to discredit the witness or the statement. Ultimately, anything that isn't a question of law will be up to the jury to determine and that's not always so easy to predict.

"I see. May I remind you that the issue here is probable cause and not whether or not my client was in violation of any game laws."

Response: Based upon the evidence I observed, I had reason to believe that hunting was occurring, and the dictates of my commission are that I determine that appropriate laws are being adhered to in the process.

"Approximately how many hunters are there in Texas? In the county where you arrested my client?"

Response: Quite a few, though I don't have a firm count. I do know that there are more hunters than lawyers, thank God! (judge calls for order as defense's objection is drowned out by laughter)

"And since you heard these shots from the 'general direction of blahblahblah,' how can you be sure they were shots fired by my client and not some other person who hunts in Texas or in that county?"

Can't be sure, but it's my job to find out, just like it's your job to get your client off. That's why I went to look.

"Can you tell me about your training in locating a shooter based on the sound of a shot heard from an unknown distance away and coming from a vague direction?"

Response: Well, I've had these ears pretty much all my life, and have used them almost as long to locate the source of sounds and track game. If you're asking whether the state has some nifty program to augment the senses God gave us, the answer is 'no.' But I just gotta ask, do they have classes in law school where they teach you to completely ignore common sense and good judgment, or do you have to possess those qualities just to get in? (Defense moves to strike - again, drowned out by laughter - state agrees to strike that last statement, but it's too late. The point is clearly made, and the jury heard it loud and clear).

...Remember that it's not defense's responsibility to disprove a statement by a prosecution witness; it's defense's goal to discredit the witness or the statement.

Response: Guess I'm too dense to discern that there'd be a real difference in the jury's eyes between disproving a statement and discrediting one. And if the defense posed the kind of questions listed above, they would pretty well discredit themselves to a jury of reasonably intelligent folks. And I don't think the defense would be able to count on a panel populated with nothing but morons.

Ultimately, anything that isn't a question of law will be up to the jury to determine and that's not always so easy to predict.

That may sound good to you, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
First of all, lawyering up will likely cost more than the violation anyway.
Second, if it was so easy to beat the rap like that, Game Wardens would not use the methods they use. One or 2 lost cases with time and money wasted and they'd change the way they operate.
Third, show me cases where some lawyer tap danced around and got a client off because the Game warden had no right to be on that ranch. If I was a juror and you played that angle, you'd go down in flames. Of course the lawyer would still get his money.
and Last, this is a really good way to have the Wardens show up every time you go hunting, looking for any minor violation they can find. Wardens probably don't like being 'Discredited'.

For me its, Yes-sir, No-sir, drop by any time you are around. I got nothing to hide.

Response: That's right. And that's why you'd have a tough time finding an attorney willing to present (or a grand jury willing to indict) a case as described above (unless, of course, the camera crews were there, and the barrister cared more about reputation than credibility).

The only beef that I have with GW's is their attitude. I think their job descriptions requires them to have a piss poor attitude. They have a guilty until proven innocent mentality for the most part. I had one check me bird hunting one time. He checked my gun, birds, and liscense. All was well. He then asked to search my vehicle and then tried to contact the land owner to see if I had permission to hunt. He said he was confident that he could find something to cite me on. After wasting a good 30 more minutes of digging and finding nothing. He up and left. No goodbye or have a nice day. I tell you. Common courtesy goes a long way, but they don't teach that at the GW academy.